CORRESPONDENCE - 75D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. A very small portion of the building is "tiered ........ only a small portion of the east side of the building has a limited 2 story and 3 story section .... a large majority of the building is still 4 stories..... and with 58/DUAs this is still High Density. (Section 4 - page 126 of the Staff Report and attachment) 2. The Aesthetics impact is due to the height of the building which at its tallest point is 74 feet 5 inches (6 stories) and is a "significant and unavoidable impact"; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is necessary..... however, the fact is that the impacts can be reduced by reducing the height of the building to 2 and 3 stories from 4 to 6 stories..... this is an easy fix. (Section 4 - pages 5, 6 & 9 of the Staff Report) 3. General Plan Land Use Element...... this is so blatant as the Staff Report only lists the "goals & policies" that support the proposed project and omits the many goals & policies that the proposed project violates...... pure justification by omission. (Section 4 - page 11 of the Staff Report and General Plan Land Use Element Pages 9-15 - see attachment) 4. District Center designation for the site ...... this is flat out being misinterpreted ..... the definition for "District Center" under the the General Plan Land Use Element section "Mixed Use" states, "Residential Developments within some District Centers are allowed.... when developed as an integral component of a master planned mixed use project." Clearly the proposed project is not a master planned "mixed use" project as it is only one use which is residential. In order to utilize the District Center zoning, the project needs a commercial component such as retail or office along with the residential use to be valid. Clearly that is not the case here. (Section 4 - pages 11 & 12 of the Staff Report and General Plan Land Use Element pages 15, A-11 & A-22 - see attachment) 5. Multi -family uses are often used to buffer Single Family Residential from high intensity uses like commercial or industrial." This statement is a half truth and very misleading ..... when multi -family is used adjacent SFR, its in the form of Medium Density (MR -IS) NOT High Density at 58/DUAs adjacent to SFR at 4.4/DUAs. (Section 4 - page 12 of the Staff Report) 6. The overall benefits of this proposed project for the residents of Park Santiago are non-existent..... its not like we get a Trader Joe's or something of that nature out of this new development ...... but the City gets fees, the Developer makes money, Discovery Center gets parking stalls..... what does Park Santiago get??? An overall poorer quality of life for our neighborhood ..... more cut through traffic in our neighborhood, more traffic on Main Street, more noise and air pollution, significant impact to aesthetics, devaluation of our homes we've invested in in Santa Ana. it is your civic duty to uphold the current General Plan designation and respect the zoning that is in place which protects our home values. (Section 4 - page 14). When presented with the real facts, you can come to a common sense determination ....... this protect still does NOT fit at this location..... don't just settle for less because its easy and you feel sorry for the applicant....they took a risk on this property and it didn't work out..... they've made millions of dollars in the City of Santa Ana on The Heritage & Prisma projects which were not opposed because they were not adiacent to SRF. Demand the best for our City! Vote NO ..... Santa Ana deserves better! Respectfully Submitted, Diane Fradkin Park Santiago 714-914-8047